Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Democrats have been playing this politics for the last several years. They Didnt extend them for ANYONE, even when they had total control to do so. If Democrats wanted tax cuts for only the poor to continue, they should have passed them for only the poor when they had the chance. Rather than do so, they let them sit there and hoping they would expire thereby increasing taxes on everyone..
Yes people Democrats were hoping for tax increases even on the poor. If they werent, they had years to do something about it and didnt..
Save it pghquest; too many people are stuck in a corner, they will not come out of that GLASS HOUSE. Can't see the truth, and when it is right in front of them.
By definition, innovation by communism is taking innovation from the private sector. Sounds like you need to learn the definitions of certain words before you begin to criticize what others are saying..
What are you talking about??? Nothing in your response makes any sense?!?! Where the heck are you getting innovation by communism from a tax break???? Hell where are you getting communism in general??? You aren't addressing a single point I have presented! I am literally at a loss of words...
Some days I seriously fear the ability to reason and debate in this country is flat out gone and has been replaced by hard coded talking points ingrained by the left or the right.
What are you talking about??? Nothing in your response makes any sense?!?! Where the heck are you getting innovation by communism from a tax break???? Hell where are you getting communism in general??? You aren't addressing a single point I have presented! I am literally at a loss of words...
Now I'm wondering what the heck you are talking about because your original posting said NOTHING about tax breaks.. You clearly said innovation BY GOVERNMENT, and now you want me to believe you were discussing tax breaks which would encourage innovation by others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
Some days I seriously fear the ability to reason and debate in this country is flat out gone and has been replaced by hard coded talking points ingrained by the left or the right.
Maybe you need to review your original posting and start again because it clearly looked like you were asking for government innovation.. THATS WHAT YOU SAID..
Seems like an easy solution. Take one for the team and ****. What do the Democrats have to gain by stalling? Make the tax cuts permanent and they could move on to their favorite issues like gays in the military and the dream act.
Thats not a compromise. Thats the dems doing what the Republicans want. Its caving.
Explain to me how that is a compromise????
The Republicans never compromised with the dems. the only reason the republicans got the house back is because the dems were too compromising.
Now I'm wondering what the heck you are talking about because your original posting said NOTHING about tax breaks.. You clearly said innovation BY GOVERNMENT, and now you want me to believe you were discussing tax breaks which would encourage innovation by others.
Maybe you need to review your original posting and start again because it clearly looked like you were asking for government innovation.. THATS WHAT YOU SAID..
"However, there are a "few" sectors of government I think government spending should increase as it would provide long term economic growth (e.g massive increases in R&D expenditures/tax credits). "
And by expenditure I am referencing R&D Grants, which is private citizens asking for financial support to do research; the research is not owned by the government. If you are not familiar with government accounting, then the reference may be elusive to what "expenditure" means.
Get some sleep because you must be crossing thoughts from different posts...
Wrong..$700B is not a higher percentage of $3T than $2.3T..
The tax cut the rich got is more than just the $700 billion. The $700 billion is just the portion of the cut for the incomes above $250,000, that is what is being taken away. However, the rich also got portions of the $2.3 trillion cut since the portions of their income under $250,000 they will still get cut.
As the article I posted last night, the income increases for the bottom 99% dropped in HALF from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, meanwhile the income increases for those at the very top escalated at an even larger pace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I know they still get the tax cut for their share of the income under $250K, so what? I dont support the class envy, attack the rich, greedy mentality of the left. Either tax cuts are good, or they are bad. You dont get to pretend they are a stimulus and helpful to the economy for person A and then all of a sudden harmful for person B.. thats just silly left wing partisan bs that only a fool could fall for..
Its not class envy, the wealthy will still get a tax break compared to the levels under Clinton. They just will get a tax cut in qual amounts to the rest of the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The wealthy doesnt need help, they clearly know what they are doing better than most of americans. Allowing them to keep their own money again, is class envy and you should stop falling for the liberal bs that somehow has convinced you that taking from these individuals somehow improves whatever, because it doesnt..
After the tax cuts were put through the increases in annual income for the bottom 99% slowed, meanwhile it continued to increase for the top 1%. the gap continued to explode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They not only added 10,200,000 new jobs for the period of time, but the CBO estimates it will be responsible for an average of 709,000 more jobs PER YEAR over the next 5 years. Why are you so anxious to put these 700,000+ individuals out of work to push forward your class envy bs?
to say all of that increase is due to the tax cuts is just plain silly. For starters we are suppose to see job growth during a time of recovery. Secondly, you don't include the job losses that occurred when those cuts were still in place, also using the seasonally adjusted chart from the bLS the max growth point is about 8 million in 4.5 years, and again that isn't including the downfall in the economy. As far as those jobs disappearing, well the CBO didn't say the jobs would disappear if the cuts are extending for the bottom 98% and aren't for the top 2%. They never made that statement so stop trying to claim they did. Secondly, an increase in the top brackets hurt so much in 1993 didn't they.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So you are claiming Democrats were little pawns and had nothing to do with substantially increasing the federal spending and deficits which coincidently took place at the very moment Democrats took over Congress? Thats hell of a coincidence wouldnt you agree?
The increase was actually late in the 2nd year they were in power while the economy was crashing, and it was something the GOP President was pushing for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
On the contrary, the problem took place within a 24 hour period. Dont you recall the mad rush to get back to Washington to pass a bill NOW before the economy crashed?
to stop the problem from getting worse. Everything was escalating out of control, that doesn't mean the problem simply happened overnight. The problem were years in the making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ooh please. Democrats were falling all over themself discussing how strong the economy was.. Articles about Minimum Wage - New York Times With the economy strong and the unemployment rate at its lowest in more than 25 years, Democrats in Congress are right to push for an increase in the minimum wage
Seriously, where were you during this whole debate? Did you sleep through these years?
Increasing the minimum wage did not cause the downturn, but it sure in hell increased unemployment. I have one company that I had to decrease the number of employees by 1 to support the increase, and while 1 isnt great in the scheme of things, thats 1 + 1 by how many other businesses? They add up..
Increasing the minimum wage did not cause any problems. Not to mention the simple fact you basically proved my point for me that the Dems were pushing this for a long time. Did you check the date of the article? September 1999.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So if you admit a 100% tax rate would cause problems, then stop repeating the same old liberal bs that more money in federal revenues = a strong economy because its bs. The federal government grows at the expense of the public sector. Maybe you should start thinking for yourself instead of listing to the liberal news medias trying to equate more federal money = fabulous because clearly here you admit this to be false..
Its a happy medium. Increased tax revenues helps a bit, it could get to the point where it causes other problems. However, sharp decreases in the growth of the revenues, as well as the lowest level of growth in decades is real poor as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I asked you to list examples, not tell me what happens. I know the process very well, but if you are going to claim it took place, then you need to list me examples of bills it took place on..
The fact remains Democrats have been getting every bill they wanted since 2007 passed. Since 2007, the economy tanked, and you cant list one darn bill the GOP has stopped which would have had any effect.. Why is that?
It never even got that far on most things because they knew it couldn't get passed. not to mention at that time all the problems were already put into place. What exactly was the GOP offering to fix things? They got everything they wanted, Bush got everything he wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wrong, the GOP understands that if you increase the tax rates on the top 2% while not increasing them on the bottom 98%, tax revenues will DROP and more people become unemployed.. Again The 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: Economic Effects of Permanent Extension | The Heritage Foundation With no change in current law, EGTRRA's lower marginal rates on ordinary income and JGTRRA's preferential rates on individual net capital gains realizations and dividend income will expire at the end of 2010. Extending these provisions would boost U.S. GDP, employment,incomes, and federal tax collections over the 10-year budget period. However, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget includes only a one-year extension of AMT relief for individuals. The AMT's expanding reach partially offsets simulated economic gains from the extension plan.
Its not the poor taking advantage of capital gains rates, dividend income..
You'd be the first one to support extension of the unemployment bill, but here you have a bill which increases employment by over 700,000 individuals and you want to end it. Why are you in such a hurry to put more people out of work and reduce the income of the poor just to support your left wing failed ideology?
Hmm isn't that EXACTLY what happened in 1993. Increased rates at the top, rates remaining the same for the bottom 98%. Yup, damn that job creation was so horrid......
Not to mention the fact again with that 700,000 figure again it doesn't state that those 700,000 would go away if the cuts were extending to the bottom 98%.
Stats can show you whatever you want them to show you. If job creation under Bush was that historically bad, why did unemployment numbers remain so low?
Do those stats take into account that during each year of the Bush administration, the illegal alien population increased? So each year illegal aliens were taking even more jobs, and they were no longer just taking unskilled labor jobs, they were taking over vocational jobs. We had plenty of news reports about illegal aliens taking over jobs in the construction field, plumbing, carpentry, auto and truck mechanics welding, etc... But still, even with that, our unemployment numbers remained very low, under Bush.
Unemployment increased from what it was when he took over. As far as illegals, that didn't seem to have an impact during the Clinton administration. Unless you plan on arguing that illegals only became a problem when Bush was in office....
The tax cut the rich got is more than just the $700 billion. The $700 billion is just the portion of the cut for the incomes above $250,000, that is what is being taken away. However, the rich also got portions of the $2.3 trillion cut since the portions of their income under $250,000 they will still get cut.
Which they will continue to receive, but that still doesnt change the math anywhere close to your figures because the number of americans under $250K far outweigh those who earn over..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
As the article I posted last night, the income increases for the bottom 99% dropped in HALF from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, meanwhile the income increases for those at the very top escalated at an even larger pace.
No, the definition of poverty increased by 30% under the Bush years than the Clinton years to equate to the difference you are sighting. The higher the poverty rate increase, the better the poor are doing, just like now they are being dropped because of the recession. We dont live in a bubble, you dont get to ignore certain facts which dispute your discussion and then pretend they dont exist..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Its not class envy, the wealthy will still get a tax break compared to the levels under Clinton. They just will get a tax cut in qual amounts to the rest of the population.
No they arent.. By your own admission they only get them up to $250K, and since the tax breaks get lower over $250K, their tax cuts are far lower than the rest of the population. You must have failed math class..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
After the tax cuts were put through the increases in annual income for the bottom 99% slowed, meanwhile it continued to increase for the top 1%. the gap continued to explode.
Thats not true at all. It might have slowed for the bottom 5% but thats because government increased their support for the poor perpetuating poverty. The tax cuts increased the burden of the taxes paid on the higher 1%, and you want to remove this pushing the tax burden to the middle class again. You clearly have no clue why this is true..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
to say all of that increase is due to the tax cuts is just plain silly. For starters we are suppose to see job growth during a time of recovery.
BINGO.. and job growth during a time of recovery which was caused by tax cuts indeed is responsible for the growth There was no recovery without the tax cuts..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Secondly, you don't include the job losses that occurred when those cuts were still in place,
The job losses would have been far worse without the cuts, by the CBO's own estimates millions upon millions of jobs, over 700,000 jobs on average over the next 5 years.. I know, you dont understand this either.. But you are the very same one to sit here and tell everyone about the millions of jobs saved by the Obama administration..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
also using the seasonally adjusted chart from the bLS the max growth point is about 8 million in 4.5 years, and again that isn't including the downfall in the economy.
You dont seasonably adjust yearly job growth rates.. They are YEARLY. You are reaching now and just making up figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
As far as those jobs disappearing, well the CBO didn't say the jobs would disappear if the cuts are extending for the bottom 98% and aren't for the top 2%.
They clearly list capital gains taxes in their discussion, which the poor dont pay. Capital Gains tax revenue DOUBLED after the tax cuts were passed. Do you understand this? Again the POOR dont pay this tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
They never made that statement so stop trying to claim they did.
They clearly show 700,000 jobs as a result of the tax cuts, are you telling me the jobs are created by the poor? Explain this magical scenario to me how the poor creates jobs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Secondly, an increase in the top brackets hurt so much in 1993 didn't they.....
The 1993 tax increases went with SPENDING cuts. When you have spending cuts you are taking less money out of the economy to borrow which offers an incentive to invest. I'd be all for stopping the tax cuts if we were discussing spending cuts to coincide but we arent. Dont even pretend they are similar because they arent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The increase was actually late in the 2nd year they were in power while the economy was crashing, and it was something the GOP President was pushing for.
Democrats took Congress in January 07, the bill passed and was signed into law in May 07. Thats MONTHS, not years.. And the economy didnt crash until mid 2008, over a year after it was passed. You have to work on your memory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
to stop the problem from getting worse. Everything was escalating out of control, that doesn't mean the problem simply happened overnight. The problem were years in the making.
The cause was decades in the making, but the collapse took place in 1, 24 hour period and originated in Switzerland, not even here in america, when a Swiss bank wrote down $4B in AAA credit mortgages which caused a limiting of overnight borrowing world wide..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Increasing the minimum wage did not cause any problems.
Bull crap.. increased minimum wages = more unemployed. To pretend more unemployed didnt cause any problems is just silly..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Not to mention the simple fact you basically proved my point for me that the Dems were pushing this for a long time. Did you check the date of the article? September 1999.
yes I did.. and the same argument was applied in 2006, even when unemployment rates were LOWER.. CSM: Why a strong economy is no GOP asset - Democratic Underground The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along.
All you did was display how the economy was strong from 1999-2006, and admitted that it was this continuing strong growth in the economy which allowed minimum wage to increase. And if the economy was so strong from 1999-2006, and Bush was president, then things werent so bad off as you like to pretend, were they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Its a happy medium. Increased tax revenues helps a bit, it could get to the point where it causes other problems. However, sharp decreases in the growth of the revenues, as well as the lowest level of growth in decades is real poor as well.
Wrong.. there is no happy medium. Federal government takes money from the economy, they limit the public sector spending. high years of increased federal revenues does not mean a strong economy no different than low years equal a weak economy. If you admit its a happy medium, (which ok, I might agree with if we are not discussing all facts) then you now admit that pretending the growth equates to the economy is also meaningless. Sharp decreases in growth is not at all bad.. if the money is allowed to stay in the public sector. You got this Robin Hood mentality that taking from society equals a fabulous economy..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
It never even got that far on most things because they knew it couldn't get passed. not to mention at that time all the problems were already put into place.
Wrong.. Just like this bill we are discussing which wont get passed in its current form. You dont stop pushing bills forward that you know wont get passed. This is a prime example of that. To pretend Democrats all of a sudden stopped playing politics is just silly..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
What exactly was the GOP offering to fix things? They got everything they wanted, Bush got everything he wanted.
The GOP held NO branch of Congress.. And who is shielding Bush in this discussion? No one, but Bush cant sign what your Democrats didnt give him.. Which you now admit they didnt do..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Hmm isn't that EXACTLY what happened in 1993. Increased rates at the top, rates remaining the same for the bottom 98%. Yup, damn that job creation was so horrid......
Not to mention the fact again with that 700,000 figure again it doesn't state that those 700,000 would go away if the cuts were extending to the bottom 98%.
And what spending is being cut now? Please list some because I want to hear how Democrats are now calling for keeping money into society rather than draining it all to push their massive spending? What you seem to ignore is with governmental support of poverty, you get poverty. The White House advisor Lawrence Summers admitted this to be true is his Economics book published in 1999. If you continue to increase the government taking money from society and you continue to support perpetuating poverty, then dont be surprised when you get more poverty..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
